Auditing the Risk Claims of Distributional Reinforcement Learning

Quantifying Risk Under Evolving Uncertainty: Belief-Dependent Robustness for Safe Sequential Decision Making

How cautious should an agent be while it is still learning its environment? We propose RATTL (Risk-Adversarial Total-Reward Learning), which ties caution to epistemic uncertainty: the agent holds a Bayesian posterior over unknown dynamics and plans against a Wasserstein ambiguity set whose radius is a monotone function of that posterior. The radius contracts with evidence, so behaviour interpolates continuously between worst-case robustness and risk-neutral total-reward maximization. The design follows the duality underlying the Entropic Value-at-Risk, which converts the choice of a risk level into the choice of an ambiguity radius. We show the resulting planning problem is well posed under transience and compactness conditions, and prove a Safety Sandwich: the RATTL value lies between the uninformed robust value and the full- knowledge optimum, with a gap that vanishes as the posterior concentrates. In a canonical binary-hazard instance, the induced criterion reduces to Conditional Value-at-Risk at a level set by the posterior entropy. A worked example shows the agent deferring the efficient action until a sharp identification threshold. RATTL targets runtime safety for agents, including LLM-based systems, acting under uncertainty.

Privileged Likelihood Is Not Automatically Value: Three Checks for Token Credit in On-Policy Self-Distillation

On-policy self-distillation aims to improve upon reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) by providing token-level scores derived from privileged information, such as reference solutions or critic feedback. These scores are treated as estimates of token-level action values, yet they answer a fundamentally different question: how the model's prediction changes when its input context is enriched, rather than how the expected outcome changes when a token is changed. We examine this gap along three dimensions: (i) whether the token-level score tracks task success; (ii) whether feedback generated from the same rollout causes the score to reflect agreement with its own description, and whether using feedback from other rollouts in the group mitigates this self-referential effect; and (iii) what behavior the resulting training objective actually reinforces. In experiments on AIME 2025, the implemented score distinguishes correct from incorrect rollouts at approximately chance level (AUC=0.505); using feedback from a different rollout does not consistently improve this discrimination; and all training configurations achieve only 24.2-33.9% Avg@4, compared with 64.2% for outcome-only GRPO. Moreover, the highest-entropy token decile accounts for 57-71% of the total absolute token-advantage mass, despite the score being least informative about reasoning quality in this regime. By contrast, similar experiments on SciKnowEval Biology improves held-out Avg@8 by 28.0%, while its corresponding trajectory scores achieve AUCs of 0.81-0.92. Together, these results suggest that dense credit assignment through distillation can be effective when its likelihood-based scores are empirically validated as meaningful proxies for outcome-relevant credit. When this alignment does not hold, however, the resulting supervision can fail to generalize and may substantially underperform outcome-based RL.

Calibrated Trust, Not Sharper Prediction: An Empirical Test of Uncertainty Fusion

A recurring proposal in legal AI is to improve case-outcome prediction by fusing uncertainty tools (evidence graphs with belief propagation, sequential Bayesian odds updating, Dempster-Shafer combination, and conformal prediction) into one pipeline. We test this on 1,000 real European Court of Human Rights cases from LexGLUE and FairLex, predicting whether the Court found a Convention violation from the case's fact paragraphs. We compare three families across two frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5) as per-fact evidence estimators: (A) the raw LLM, (B) the LLM routed through the fusion pipeline, and (C) a term-frequency baseline through the same pipeline. Across roughly 4,750 tests we find: (1) on discrimination (AUROC around 0.83) the pipeline yields no improvement over either the raw LLM or the baseline; a frontier LLM used directly is the strongest single discriminator. (2) Naively composing an LLM with Bayesian-odds and Dempster-Shafer fusion more than doubles calibration error (ECE from about 0.16 to 0.46) via a prior-mismatch mechanism that replicates across both models. (3) Dempster-Shafer fusion is actively unsafe on long chains, committing confidently to wrong labels at below-chance accuracy; we recommend removing it. (4) The pipeline's genuine value is operational: routed through a conformal selective-prediction layer, the system decides which cases to automate and which to escalate. After removing Dempster-Shafer, recalibrating, and applying class-conditional risk control on the full 1,000-case set, the tuned engine auto-clears at 96.8 percent accuracy with 0.5 percent errors escaping and 96.3 percent caught for review, versus 85.9 / 3.8 / 72.1 for an untuned baseline. The contribution of such pipelines in law is calibrated trust, not sharper prediction.

Reinforcement Learning from Epistemic Regret: Learning Why, Not Just What

Inverse Learning of Latent Risk-Neutral Densities from Irregular Option Quotes

Accurate option prices do not imply accurate recovery of the latent risk-neutral density. We study this distinction with two complementary benchmarks. A controlled benchmark exposes simulator-truth densities for latent evaluation, while a chronological NIFTY benchmark tests only held-out market prices. A two-component lognormal mixture has the lowest aggregate price, $L^1$, Wasserstein, and fixed-tail errors on the synthetic benchmark. Learned operators retain narrower strengths: DeepONet reduces 1% quantile and variance error by 39.0% and 34.6% relative to the mixture, and a quote transformer reduces $L^1$ by 16.4% on the structurally misspecified Merton family. A numerical conditioning analysis explains why these rankings can differ: after enforcing mass and forward constraints, 95 of 126 pricing directions are numerically null, and two densities separated by $L^1 = 0.061$ produce identical prices on the covered strikes. On 524 held-out NIFTY calls, validation-selected test-time adaptation reduces DeepONet RMSE by 28.3%, but per-expiry mixture and SVI fits remain much more accurate. The evidence supports target-dependent inductive bias, not a universal winner.

Credit Without Ground Truth: Auditing Step-Level Credit Assignment in LLM Agents Against Executed Replay

Audited against policy-conditional ground truth from executed replay in a single-agent tool environment (ALFWorld), none of the step-level credit signals we audit -- LLM-judge scores, outcome-conditioned logprob ratios, or the policy's own confidence -- shows reliable incremental fidelity beyond its own marginal-matched shuffled control. Correcting for replay-target reliability leaves implicit fidelity bounded near zero and judge fidelity inconclusive at the achieved target reliability. Existing evaluations grade these signals against annotated step *correctness*; we audit them against step *contribution* -- what re-sampling the policy's own alternatives at each decision point and rolling forward changes about the outcome -- and they come apart. The ground truth is structured: 30.5% of decision points where it is defined exhibit a nonzero replay contrast at the achieved sampling resolution, and measurability is model-dependent -- the fraction of points with no policy-supported counterfactual differs twofold (13.1% vs. 26.8%) between two similar-scale policies. The failure mode is identifiable: implicit credit echoes the policy's fluency (median rank correlation +0.75, replicating at +0.70 in a second family under a corrected instrument), while outcome conditioning adds no causal information (partial correlation -0.004, Qwen). A confidence-only router recovers pivotal steps at chance level, but cuts judge cost by 13.1% per turn (14.0% per trajectory). In a seven-arm pre-registered training experiment, no arm reliably outperforms the untrained policy, and the checkpoints'apparent instrument signature is statistically consistent with mediation by effective training dose in this design -- sparser credit retains fewer examples, an order-of-magnitude spread in optimizer steps -- not credit content. Comparisons of credit rules must match effective sample size, or they measure dose, not credit.